peelfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:15 October 1967
Looks like a candidate for deletion then. Dr Mango (talk) 14:06, July 13, 2015 (UTC) Hi Doc, Thanks for your message. Not really sure about this one, as it is in the Top Gear cannon of Ken G's book, and might be to some extent interestng to have a bit of a record on the wiki of who the initial other presenters and session bands were. I'm open to anyone's thoughts on this. It is the Peel Wiki, but perhaps this could be an exceptional case, as with later shows when people sat in for him. Cheers, Steve W (talk) 17:22, July 13, 2015 (UTC) Fair points - I didn't realise this was a Top Gear show. Jumping in too fast again! As a general principle though, I wouldn't like to encourage the addition of pages where no recording or no track listing exists. I don't really see the point, unless it's there for historical reasons. Dr Mango (talk) 19:41, July 13, 2015 (UTC) Hi Doc, Many thanks for your reply. Maybe one to keep as an exception for historical reasons, then. Agree that the general rule should to have pages for Peel shows only, with at least some kind of tracklisting details if possible. As this one shows up on the calendar, think it needs to be in the standard format for show tracklisting pages, even if we don't have any tracklisting details. Can sort this out tonight. At least we have some minimum info on the presenters, sessions, etc, from Ken and elsewhere, for the comments section. Steve W (talk) 01:57, July 14, 2015 (UTC) After we decided to keep this page as an exceptional case of non-Peel show for historical reasons, I'm wondering now if it may be in danger of veering a bit far from the standard style for the wiki, although at least the layout now seems OK. In particular, good to have the official release details, recording dates, etc - in keeping with the normal style - but I don't know if it's really necessary to have the session tracks listed (out of order), as the normal site style is to try and build up the actual tracklisting as broadcast (including records), with straight listings of the session tracks usually going on the artist pages. I'd be in favor of leaving the section that now has all the tracks listed blank, but keeping the rest of the page as it is. If we have all the session tracks listed as they are now, it's completely out of style with the rest of the site. I'd prefer not to go down that route. Wondering what other people think. Steve W (talk) 17:06, July 19, 2015 (UTC) I agree. I don't think the track listing should be populated at all. Dr Mango (talk) 19:23, July 19, 2015 (UTC) I think I've now started to agree with the Doctor !! Johnpeel3904 (talk) 19:26, July 19, 2015 (UTC) Hi Doc and JP3904, Many thanks for above messages. Glad it's not just me who sees it like this. Let's leave it a day or two to see if anyone else has thoughts. Steve W (talk) 03:05, July 20, 2015 (UTC) I started to flesh out the page after someone had written that the Who "performed" on the show - and also because I'm probably one of the few people in the group old enough to recall hearing it at the time. I wasn't quite sure about the tracklisitng, though - I didn't start it but added to it., But as only some of the session tracks are available on official releases and fan compilations, with no Peel links, it's incomplete and inaccurate. So yes, I think the tracklisting should be deleted and the rest retained.Grang354 (talk) 15:32, July 20, 2015 (UTC) Hi folks, Many thanks for above contributions to discussion. OK, think we're all good with a blank tracklistings section - will delete what we have there now. Cheers, Steve W (talk) 14:59, July 21, 2015 (UTC)